Not1b4me’s Blog

WeRtheVoices

Barack Obama and the CIA

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/04/24/barack_obama_and_the_cia_why_does_president_pantywaist_hate_america_so_badly

May 26, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap | | Leave a comment

We The People Versus Our Lawless Elected Officials

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2255411/posts

 

Posted on 2009-05-21 08:57:28 AM by Uncle Sham

We the People have a serious problem facing us. We have an out of control government hell-bent on further enslaving us at breakneck speed. This government displays a piece of paper every now and then called the Constitution, mostly at election time in an effort to comfort us into thinking that somehow it is being obeyed. We know differently, don’t we?

We have a person pretending to be President who has yet to prove to me or to anyone else for that matter that he is actually eligible to serve under the provisions of Article two of the Constitution. Our elected officials, as you will see below, are REQUIRED to ensure that he is in fact eligible. It is our job as citizens to put the heat on them (our elected officials) to do their primary job as defined in the Constituion, to “support it”. We have the legal case to do this and I’m going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.

Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:

” ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President electshall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19

TITLE 3–THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act

”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “

Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:

” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:

The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to “eligibility” qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.

The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.

There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?

If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.

Based upon the above, I conclude that:

1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms “The President elect shall have failed to qualify” clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.

2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has “standing” and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to “support” the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.

3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: birth; birthcertificate; certificate; certifigate; constitution; obama

We need to focus this thread on looking at all avenues of approach as it pertains to legally charging, convicting, and removing elected officials who refuse to obey their oath of office to the Constitution itself. What can they be charged with and how best should these charges be brought? If we did this nation-wide, it would have a larger impact than the Tea parties.
1 posted on 2009-05-21 08:57:28 AM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Keep this train rolling! I’m sending this to my Senators and Rep. If they get enough of this they may actually “think” about doing something.

2 posted on 2009-05-21 09:12:48 AM by Don Corleone (“Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

They get by with this because they think that they have us in a position of fear. Also, if you look around the country, 50% of the fools out there think that this is cute. Most of them do not work nor do they file taxes. But they get to vote. Until such time as you all gather and confront these elected fools, let me highlight that—CONFRONT—. Until such time as they believe that they are going to be held individually accountable in some way that makes them fear for their being, this is going to continue.

I dont know what it is going to take, but there are enough devious and legal minds here that someone should be able to come up with something. These elected fools have to be made to respect the people. Right now they think that they are your owners and managers. They think that once they get elected it empowers them to control you. We have allowed that to happen. Just look at the damn-fool bills and laws that have been introduced lately. Also look at how they have been able with devious means to spike bills such as Texas’ sovereignty bill. Why? Because it would take them off the public tit……….wasnt that the intent in the first place?

Folks have to make a decision whether they are going to stand up or whether they will remain sheeple. It all begins with catching these politicians when they come home and scaring the fool out of them.

3 posted on 2009-05-21 09:16:04 AM by Concho ( No Birth Certificate-No Census!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Good threat. Pinging for later when I can read ALL of it!!!!!

4 posted on 2009-05-21 09:48:57 AM by blueyon (It is worth taking a stand even if you are standing alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Fighting Communism all over the globe for most of the 20th century seems in retrospect like a wasted effort now we have a Communist usurper as President.

5 posted on 2009-05-21 01:09:02 PM by TexasRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
“Keep this train rolling! I’m sending this to my Senators and Rep. If they get enough of this they may actually “think” about doing something.”Don’t count on them thinking, it’s legal pressure from us that we need to make them think about.
6 posted on 2009-05-21 07:18:50 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasRepublic
“Fighting Communism all over the globe for most of the 20th century seems in retrospect like a wasted effort now we have a Communist usurper as President.”That’s why it’s up to us, the plain ordinary folks who’ve made this country what we all should be trying like hell to preserve. All those young men and women who DIED to help us keep our freedom are counting on us to fight the fight. Pressing legal charges against cowardly representatives is one way to begin. We are looking into how to do so here in our area. Start a movement to do the same in your area. We can and WILL win this.

In the meantime, spread the word.

7 posted on 2009-05-21 07:23:57 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim, this is one thing we can ALL start doing. If there are legal types who have ideas about how best to approach this, it would be of great benefit to this effort.

8 posted on 2009-05-21 07:27:10 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
9 posted on 2009-05-21 07:29:28 PM by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; ctdonath2; abb; STE=Q; frog in a pot; Atom Smasher; MHGinTN; rrstar96; …

a ping for your valued input.

Congressman Billybob, You expressed skepticism at whether or not one of our representatives would stand up for the Constitution on this issue. What can We the People do to such a coward, legally, because of this refusal?

10 posted on 2009-05-21 09:57:15 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

This is an excellent issue you have put together.

The first thing that needs to be done is to change the status quo. These idiots in the WH aren’t blind, they aren’t daft, they aren’t even stupid….they know exactly what they’re doing. They are stomping on the Constitution because they have the power to do it. They don’t care about values, principles, and the like. I’ll guarantee that half of them don’t even give a crapt about our country. All they care about is enriching themselves, and making sure they get voted back in. This comes from all the money, greed, and corruption that each of them has their fingers in. So, who in power is around to stop them?

Your read is excellent in that yes, everyone should keep sending this to officials that might change their minds & do something. Keep sending it over & over, like 3-4 times, if not more, a day. Right now might be the best time, because there are little divisions going on right now everywhere in the house, and in the same party.

Another thing, equally important, is to expose the corrupt corporations that are giving members in the WH their power. I’ve recently heard that the FBI is more than happy to go after subsidiaries of ACORN. (Just tonight it was said that Theresa Heinz Kerry has contributed over 8 million dollars to Tides…a subsidiary of ACORN). I think we are going to find that a lot of our politicians got their hands in this somewhere.

11 posted on 2009-05-21 10:21:31 PM by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: abb
Here’s some information concerning Oath Of Office Violations and the Consequences thereof.Oath of Office Law Information

From the Link:

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “ advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine. Alright, this is a start.

12 posted on 2009-05-21 10:22:10 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Continuing from my last post, I believe we can change the status quo in 2010. It’s obvious that even with legal help, the higher courts aren’t going for it. Changing the bodies, and then going after them is what I suggest. I just pray we can hold out that long.

Expose BillyBob for what he is. Expose all of them. We need to get the word out so the vote brings the change we need.

13 posted on 2009-05-21 10:29:35 PM by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Atom Smasher
Election time is far away. Proving that your local elected official has broken his Oath of office and taking him to court for it can be started as soon as you read the Constitution.Here’s the U.S. Constitution

The eligibility case I’ve outlined above will work. I’m quite sure that there are hundreds more to find and go after. Thanks for the help!

14 posted on 2009-05-21 10:56:56 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
Bookmarking and on guard.Us against them and all that jazz.

Its on, and the political class is facing a culling.

15 posted on 2009-05-21 10:58:56 PM by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I suggest 2010 because I haven’t been able to find any attorneys here, in Michigan, who think my case is valid. I have quoted areas of the Constitution that we all know have been violated, but I’m told that it isn’t enough to prove wrong doing.

We have a gov here who is in bed with everyone, I even hear she might be looking to win the house next election. The WH @ssholes got their hands in our car companies here and God knows what else.

If you can find legal help in your state, please ping me & I will get a hold of your legal people, and ask them if they can recommend anyone to us here in Michigan. Surely these attorneys will know others like them.

Like I said, these were Const. Attorneys, or so they say. It was like I was talking to a wall. I even went as far as approaching a law professor at the University I attend, to see if they would consider taking this on….no go!

So let us all know what legal institution or firm you get in with, and maybe they can direct us in who to talk to in our states.

16 posted on 2009-05-21 11:48:26 PM by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Atom Smasher
It’s up to We the People. If we are unable to locate attorneys, we must press forward on our own. If we can kick start this legal storm it will turn into a whirlwind that will wipe the slate clean of EVERYONE in it’s path to restoring Constitutional law in this nation.The founding fathers put us in charge of our government. It’s time we stand up and claim ownership. Everyone reading this should be looking into all legal options for getting rid of their representatives who are OPENLY defying the Constitution. You can’t win a war with evil if you refuse to fight.
17 posted on 2009-05-22 08:20:20 AM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

“5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to **ADVOCATE** the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”(EMPHASES MINE)

The problem is that, at face, — unless we can prove otherwise — their culpability appears to be ‘tacit’ rather than ‘actively’ participating to overthrow or subvert the constitution.

It’s an ‘act’ of omission analogous to a policeman ‘looking the other way’ when a crime is being committed and, therefore, hard to prove.

In short: a ‘conspiracy’ of silence.

We need hard EVIDENCE from someone ‘high up’ who would be willing to ‘rat out’ the party or parties directly involved … EVIDENCE that would prove that government officials in Congress WILLFULLY — and ACTIVELY — violated their oaths of office.

There MUST be a ‘deep throat’, somewhere, willing to help.

Did somebody mention the FBI?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100655.html

STE=Q

18 posted on 2009-05-22 04:01:49 PM by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

I have an answer for you. It’s in the Constitution and I’ll post it a little later tonight. Read that document. We have multiple attack points from which to press legal cases.

19 posted on 2009-05-22 06:44:34 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
“It’s an ‘act’ of omission analogous to a policeman ‘looking the other way’ when a crime is being committed and, therefore, hard to prove.”This is not what we are facing here. What we are facing is telling a policeman, with a camera rolling as we do so, that his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw a burglar entering the back window of the bank, then he ignores us.

I’m working on another angle of attack as well as this one, all from a Constitutional perspective. Stay tuned.

20 posted on 2009-05-23 12:00:51 AM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
I have an answer for you. It’s in the Constitution and I’ll post it a little later tonight. Read that document.I will!

Thanks for your reply.

STE=Q

21 posted on 2009-05-23 10:07:44 AM by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Atom Smasher
“So let us all know what legal institution or firm you get in with, and maybe they can direct us in who to talk to in our states.”Find conservative judges and conservative Federal prosecutors and present this to them. I’m not getting the responses you seem to be getting. I’m trying to find out what all of the options are for REMOVING my representatives from office.
22 posted on 2009-05-23 01:30:52 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Thank you very much for that. I’ll keep looking.

23 posted on 2009-05-23 02:54:30 PM by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
“The problem is that, at face, — unless we can prove otherwise — their culpability appears to be ‘tacit’ rather than ‘actively’ participating to overthrow or subvert the constitution.”“In short: a ‘conspiracy’ of silence.”

Ignoring any portion of the Constitution is equivalent to ignoring all of it. It is not now, nor ever has been a “pick and choose” document. The document itself in Article Six says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Another passage from Article Four, Section four says:

“Section 4 – Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Now, what does this passage mean to you? To me it means that we as a nation are a “representative republic” whereby our wishes and demands are represented by someone who “represents” them on our behalf. This passage “guarantees” to every state that we will be “represented”. Think about this guarantee for a moment. Are we being represented, if our legislator is absent during votes? Are we being represented if our legislator doesn’t know the content of that which he cast votes for or against? What’s the difference? This goes beyond just the oath of office because now this “guarantee” is also being compromised.

24 posted on 2009-05-23 04:12:15 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
“Section 4 – Republican government — The United States shall GUARANTEE to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” (Emphases Mine)Believe it or not, I took your advice and Article Four, Section Four, jumped out at me!

… And I did a little research, as follows:

Republic (n)

1: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also: a nation or other political unit having such a government

2: a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to VOTE and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to LAW; also: a nation or other political unit having such a form of government(Emphases Mine)

Notice #2: The SUPREME POWER of ‘The Citizens’ is transfered by the agency of the citizens VOTE to Officers and REPRESENTATIVES who then become empowered to govern — on behalf of the citizens — according to LAW.

Now once we EMPOWER the aforementioned REPRESENTATIVES to govern on our behalf, through the agency of our VOTE; the most obvious way to dis-empower them, is ALSO, though the agency of our vote.

I also found this little “gem” as follows:

GUARANTEE OF REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT

The first clause of this section, in somewhat different language, was contained in the Virginia Plan introduced in the Convention and was obviously attributable to Madison. 321 Through the various permutations into its final form, 322 the object of the clause seems clearly to have been more than an authorization for the Federal Government to protect States against foreign invasion or internal insurrection, 323 a power seemingly already conferred in any case. 324 No one can now resurrect the full meaning of the clause and intent which moved the Framers to adopt it, but with the exception of the reliance for a brief period during Reconstruction the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored. 325

In Luther v. Borden, 326 the Supreme Court established the doctrine that questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, in character and that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character…”

So — according to the Supreme Court — CONGRESS must GUARANTEE: A Republican form of Government.

The KEY word here is GUARANTEE.

So my question is this:

What LAWS have Congress passed in order to “guarantee” a Republican Form of Government?

Who will oversee this “GUARANTEE” if the Supreme Court won’t!

THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT (copy and past)

Excerpt:

When Ben Franklin exited the constitutional convention he was asked by a woman:

‘Sir, what have you given us?’

He replied ‘A Republic Ma am, if you can keep it’

Apparently, the burden is on “We the People” to restore the republic, before it’s too late!

We must keep the issue of Obama’s hiding his citizenship status — in plain sight of The United States Congress — alive!

STE=Q

25 posted on 2009-05-23 10:45:48 PM by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
“Now once we EMPOWER the aforementioned REPRESENTATIVES to govern on our behalf, through the agency of our VOTE; the most obvious way to dis-empower them, is ALSO, though the agency of our vote.”Our “vote” cannot be the only way because if they want to ignore the Constitution, whats to keep them from simply ignoring the parts of it that require elections? We MUST and investigate and define all avenues of removal of our “public servants”. Good digging, though.
26 posted on 2009-05-23 11:16:47 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

BUMP!

27 posted on 2009-05-25 08:05:53 AM by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It’s The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

Thanks for the bump. This issue deserves it.

28 posted on 2009-05-25 03:09:58 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; Fred Nerks; ETL; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; stockpirate; …
We The People Versus Our Lawless Elected OfficialsPinging The List.
29 posted on 2009-05-25 03:19:33 PM by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

From the very beginning of obama’s refusal to show his BC, I mentioned a class action lawsuit. For some reason I was told it was not possible. Say 5 million people, getting together and paying a dollar each for a attorney to do one thing, get the BC. What attorney would say no to that?

what are the legal terms of a class action lawsuit? We have enough people online to do this. Look at the tea party participant numbers.

30 posted on 2009-05-25 03:26:03 PM by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Atom Smasher

There are attorneys and groups who fight for the people. I know there is a big one in Washington.

http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/casesbytopic_Date.cfm

One of the lawsuits filed was over Franklin Raines and line item veto. What? Imagine that. I have read one of the cases the attorneys fought and won. His name was Greg Beck but he does cases about online fair use laws. From my reading they seem totally involved in citizens rights as according to the laws.

http://www.tlpj.org/ I know nothing about this one.

There is another one that I can’t remember the name of. They fought for all of those college students who got stung uploading songs.

Why would these non profits not look into this? The other problem is someone has to have asked already.

31 posted on 2009-05-25 03:50:25 PM by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

“5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C.

Anyone have the Pelosi signed document she vetted obama properly?

32 posted on 2009-05-25 03:53:04 PM by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OafOfOffice

I don’t think we need a class-action lawsuit because those representatives of ours have the “standing” by virtue of their oath of office in Article Six of the Constitution. It is up to us, the little folks to put LEGAL pressure on each of our representatives to live up to their oath of office or just admit that the Constitution is worthless. Guess what. If it’s worthless, they can no longer claim powers granted to them by it. We don’t have to respect it either. Let’s put them in that corner.

33 posted on 2009-05-25 04:12:51 PM by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Mike Gallagher had a program today on the ‘missing BC’.

34 posted on 2009-05-25 04:28:20 PM by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Haven’t we tried to do that? Look at all the money spent for full page ads and the lawsuits. What the h*ll is going on? I am beginning to think this was one big conspiracy to turn our nation into socialism and our GOP are a part of it.

After Orly confronted two SCOTUS judges did they ever answer her?

Update me what you figure out. Cheney is on the lawsuit to answer June 21st.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/lawyers/mario-apuzzo/

I think a lot has been done to corner everyone unless they dumb, deaf and blind.

35 posted on 2009-05-25 05:11:07 PM by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

http://www.aunetwork.tv/

this website has weekly teleconference on obama’s eligibility. You can call in and ask questions or give your ideas. They all work together once they have a plan too. The past calls are available.

36 posted on 2009-05-25 05:13:48 PM by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
…his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw…”And therein lies the problem in a huge nutshell. His job is NOT to prevent crime. His job is to investigate the crime afterwards, and prosecute the criminal(s) if there is enough proof a criminal can/will be found guilty. I THINK doesn’t get it. A PROVEN, ACTUAL crime has got to be committed first or a policeman cannot act, and it must be pursued as a crime by criminal investigation. There must be independent PROOF that a criminal is guilty because a criminal cannot be forced to incriminate him/herself.
As I said before, the Fifth Amendment has created a paradox in this situation. I don’t have time right now to go into this deeper, but I will later.
37 posted on 2009-05-25 06:28:08 PM by MestaMachine (Will global warming make hell hotter? Or is hell freezing over? That is the ???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

 

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

May 26, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap | | Leave a comment

Revealed: The Obama birth certificate protection act

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2257619/posts

May 26, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap | | Leave a comment

Why Obama has to Redistribute Americans Wealth to Insure His and Our Salvation

April 3, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap | | Leave a comment

SIGN THE PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

March 25, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap | , | 1 Comment

Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama‘s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama’s budget than the new administration predicted just last month — a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It’s a prospect even the president’s own budget director called unsustainable.

In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, but the eye-popping deficit numbers threaten to swamp his ambitious agenda of overhauling health care, exploring new energy sources and enacting scores of domestic programs.

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or else pare back his agenda.

By CBO’s calculation, Obama’s budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year of red ink over 2010-2019.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama’s policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.

White House budget chief Peter Orszag said that CBO’s long-range economic projections are more pessimistic than those of the White House, private economists and the Federal Reserve and that he remained confident that Obama’s budget, if enacted, would produce smaller deficits.

Even so, Orszag acknowledged that if the CBO projections prove accurate, Obama’s budget would produce deficits that could not be sustained.

Deficits in the, let’s say, 5 percent of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios that would ultimately not be sustainable,” Orszag told reporters.

Deficits so big put upward pressure on interest rates as the government offers more attractive interest rates to attract borrowers.

“I think deficits of 5 percent (of GDP) are unsupportable,” said economist Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “It will lead to higher interest rates to the point where it will force policymakers to make changes.”

Republicans immediately piled on.

“This report should serve as the wake-up call this administration needs,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. “We simply cannot continue to mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future to pay for bigger and more costly government.”

But Obama insisted on Friday that his agenda is still on track.

“What we will not cut are investments that will lead to real growth and prosperity over the long term,” Obama said. “That’s why our budget makes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform. That’s why it enhances America’s competitiveness by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and building a clean energy economy.”

Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 contains ambitious programs to overhaul the U.S. health care system and initiate new “cap-and-trade” rules to combat global warming.

Both initiatives involve raising federal revenues sharply higher, but those dollars wouldn’t be used to defray the burgeoning deficit and would instead help pay for Obama’s health plan and implement Obama’s $400 tax credit for most workers and $800 for couples.

Obama’s budget promises to cut the deficit to $533 billion in five years. The CBO says the red ink for that year will total $672 billion.

Most disturbing to Obama allies like Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., are the longer term projections, which climb above $1 trillion again by the end of the next decade and approach 6 percent of GDP by 2019.

Among about a dozen major changes to Obama’s budget, Conrad is looking to curb Obama’s 9 percent increase for non-defense appropriations to show short-term progress and insists that the long-term deficit and debt crisis will have to be addressed via a special bipartisan commission.

“The budget that I’ll submit will cut the deficit by more than two-thirds over these first five years,” Conrad. “These imbalances are just absolutely unsustainable.”

The worsening economy is responsible for the even deeper fiscal mess inherited by Obama. As an illustration, CBO says the deficit for the current budget year, which began Oct. 1, will top $1.8 trillion, $93 billion more than foreseen by the White House. That would equal 13 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II.

The 2009 deficit, fueled by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and diving tax revenues stemming from the worsening recession, is four times the previous $459 billion record set just last year.

The CBO’s estimate for 2010 is worse as well, with a deficit of almost $1.4 trillion expected under administration policies, about $200 billion more than predicted by Obama.

Long-term deficit predictions have proven notoriously fickle — George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and instead produced record deficits — and if the economy outperforms CBO’s expectations, the deficits could prove significantly smaller.

Republicans say Obama’s budget plan taxes, spends and borrows too much, and they’ve been sharply critical of his $787 billion economic stimulus measure and a just-passed $410 billion omnibus spending bill that awarded big increases to domestic agency budgets.

The administration says it inherited deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next decade and that its budget plan cuts $2 trillion from those deficits. But most of those spending reductions come from reducing costs for the war in Iraq.

Cure Liberalism T-shirts & GiftsDem"no"crats Anti-Democrat T-shirts & Gifts

March 21, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap, Scary | , | 2 Comments

Obama and the rest of the Democratss false hope and change

Barack Obama Master of Hopenosis T-shirts

headup1copy-mediuminit_I'm Cold/Global Warming T-shirts & Gifts

 

 

 

 

 

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “The American people deserve a government that is a fierce watchdog of their hard-earned tax dollars.  Congress and the new Administration will ensure that TARP funds are used for lending to American workers and small businesses – so we can lift our economy out of recession – and not for the enrichment of a privileged few.” (Press Release, 1/21/2009)
  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):  “If the actions of the President-elect on TARP are any indication, a new day is dawning in Washington, DC, and a good day, a bright day…Barack Obama has also said there will be transparency, there will be oversight, and Barack Obama has said the disbursal of TARP funds will require his signoff; not a Secretary, not somebody in some clerk’s office, not a group of people, but every penny will require Barack Obama’s personal signoff.” (Congressional Record, 1/15/2009)
  • House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD):  “It should strengthen our confidence to know that President Obama has learned from the mistakes that were made during the Bush administration in administering this sum of money. That is not a criticism. Mistakes are made. But we can learn from those mistakes, and we will learn from those mistakes.” (Congressional Record, 1/22/2009)
  • Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL):  “I am going to be voting with the faith that this new administration, with new leadership and new eyes and new vision and new values, will invest this money properly so that we can turn this economy around and build a strong American future.” (Congressional Record, 1/15/2009)
  • Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA):  “We saw bankers saying, ‘I got the money. It’s none of your business what we do with it.’ We saw bonuses given that shouldn’t be given. I am confident that the Obama administration has learned from that.” (Congressional Record, 1/22/2009)
  • Senator Jim Webb (D-VA): “The situation now, in my view, is different. I spoke with the President-elect. He indicated he was totally comfortable with my coming to the Senate floor and saying that he personally guarantees closure on all of those issues…that there will be limits on executive compensation; and that there clearly are going to be strong proposals, to re-regulate the financial markets.” (Congressional Record, 1/15/2009)
  • Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) (Again):  “We believe the Obama administration will abide by its commitment to follow this bill if it’s passed. I understand the skepticism on the Republican side because we’re telling them that we have a commitment which we accept as valid from a new administration that they will abide by the bill as it passes the House.” (Congressional Record, 1/14/2009)
  • Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT):  “That is what this President has asked for–both the outgoing and incoming one–to give this incoming President the tools necessary to move forward.  Now, I know, as well, there is going to be far better accountability, far more transparency.” (Congressional Record, 1/15/2009)
  • Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX):  “And by the way, my friends, in this language it says so more of these big bonuses and compensation and grandstanding resort packages, no more of that.” (Congressional Record, 1/22/2009)
  • Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA):  “So I say to my constituents I will vote for this, and I will do it because of the assurances I have gotten from the President-elect himself that it will be different, that he will use these funds judiciously, that he needs to make sure he has this tool in his pocket. I hope my constituents understand that after hearing that from this President… I feel he deserves my trust at this time.” (1/15/2009)
  • Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I felt a little bit, after the last one, like Charlie Brown and Lucy–she is always pulling the football out from under Charlie Brown. I said: That is not going to happen to me again. Well, Lucy is not holding the ball now. We have someone new holding that ball, someone by the name of Barack Obama and Joe Biden and their team.” (Congressional Record, 1/15/2009)
  • Senator Patty Murray (D-WA): “Today, I met with Timothy Geithner, the President-elect’s nominee to head the Treasury Department. He gave me his assurances that transparency and accountability will be improved…With those assurances, I believe the American people are finally going to get the investment and the honesty they deserve.” (Congressional Record, 1/15/2009)
  • Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL):  “Today, the President will limit executive compensation for executives of companies that take advantage of taxpayer bailout funds. This is the right thing to do.” (Congressional Record, 2/4/2009)
  • Congressman James McGovern (D-MA):  “The Congress will not be a rubber stamp of the executive branch, unlike the first 6 years of the Bush administration…And I should say that the statement by the Obama administration, the statement by Larry Summers, is all very encouraging. It demonstrates a real appreciation of what average people are going through.” (Congressional Record, 1/14/2009)
  • Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR):  “…we have tried to redirect, to prod and push and probe to make sure that there is greater transparency and coax greater performance out of the Bush administration while dealing with the criteria by which we will be going forward.  This is the work that the Congress should be doing, and I think we are doing it in a reasonable fashion. It’s coming in the context of other tools that the new administration has sought and desperately needs.” (Congressional Record, 1/22/2009)
  • Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD): “We need to give President Obama the tools he needs to get our economy going again. We shouldn’t hold the misdeeds of the Bush administration against him…This week, the President-elect huddled with us, to talk about how his plan is different than the previous administration. We need vigilance and responsibility that’s what President Obama has pledged.” (Congressional Record, 1/15/2009)

March 21, 2009 Posted by | Assinine | , , | Leave a comment

$11,000,000,000,000

 http://gottagetdrunkfirst.blogspot.com/2009/03/11000000000000.html

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

$11,000,000,000,000

It happened within the last hour. I noticed it posted on Drudge and then I looked at our National Debt Clock posted on the lower right side of this blog. Yup. $11T. I can’t believe it has come to this. We have, what, 305 million people in America? And about half of us pay federal income taxes, leaving 152.5 million to pay the bill. And if you assume an average household size of 2.25, the national debt burden is $162,295 per federal tax paying household. This doesn’t include federal taxes required to fund ongoing government operations. It doesn’t include interest payments on the debt. It doesn’t include any state or local taxes, and it doesn’t include unfunded future liabilities in the form of entitlements.

To put this in a different perspective, consider this. The median home price in the United States was $180,000 by year-end 2008. So the national debt burden is now close to the median cost of a home, which most people finance with a 30-year mortgage. Obviously, federal tax paying households cannot handle a double-mortgage. So the debt will have to be deferred down the generations, with each generation chipping away at the block. Progress can only be made when the government stops borrowing, and there are no signs of that stopping right now.

The longer it takes to pay it off, the more expensive it becomes. In 2008, our interest payments were $500 billion, folks. It will be larger for 2009. So that means in two years, we will have shifted over $1 trillion of our resources away from productive means in order to pay interest on debt alone, all while the overall principle balance continues to increase because the government won’t stop borrowing and spending. Is this sinking in, yet? Are you following me? It gets worse. We will…I guarandamnfuckingtee it…we will be printing money because investors, both national and international, are becoming increasingly wary of our economic health. And when we can’t sell enough debt to fund the government’s hunger, we are forced to monetize debt by printing more money. You know what happens after the money printing presses stop smoking? I-N-F-L-A-T-I-O-N!!

You wanna know why the government is frantic to generate new sources of revenue? Because it’s running out of money!! Unemployment is on the rise. Business investment has plummeted. Trillions of dollars in wealth has disappeared within one year from the major stock exchanges. And the recession is spreading on a global scale. And all the government can think about is more government and the advancement of a sinister agenda aimed directly at our liberties. After the government has exhausted all external sources of income, it will be forced to fire up the printing presses at an unprecedented rate. And when that happens…lights out, New York, just like in Atlas Shrugged.

It’s a roller coaster ride headed straight to Hell, and this ride doesn’t have an emergency stop switch. It’s a shitball rolling downhill faster and faster, engulfing everything in its path!! That’s right! WE – ARE – FUCKED!!

We are so unbelievably fucked that I can’t believe we have yet to take the streets with our fists clinched. Somebody, somewhere has got to do something! I don’t know what that something is but I don’t feel liable at all for this national debt. I didn’t vote for it. I didn’t ask for it. I haven’t benefited from it, and I know it is morally wrong and economically unsustainable to sack our future generations with this debt. But we have nowhere to hide!

One day the piper will have to be paid, and the piper ain’t very nice. We’re talking China, Russia, OPEC, we got Communists crawling all over Central and South America…you name it. We have sold this country down the river with Satan manning the oars. Fuck you, Washington, DC. FUCK YOU TO HELL!!! So help me God I will avenge the sins the Baby Boomer generation has inflicted upon my generation and those behind me. You 1960s Communist rejects can kiss my mother fucking ass.

It’s time…

March 20, 2009 Posted by | Government Sucks, Obama Crap | , | Leave a comment

THE AUDACITY OF BARACK OBAMA

March 20, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap | | Leave a comment

Where my check

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUteO5XXrJI&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXMsr-y4FhM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDPnGqBNyF8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU

March 20, 2009 Posted by | Amusing, Assinine | | Leave a comment